State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Taneja Developers And Infrastructure ... vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 23 August, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 23.08.2012 Revision Petition No. 12/57 1.Taneja Developers and Revisionists Infrastructure Ltd., G-7, Ground Floor, Connaught Circus, Opp. Madras Hotel Block, New Delhi. Through Authorized Representative 2.Shri Vishal Mittal Authorised Representative, Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Respondent s/o Sh. Purshottam Lal Gupta, R/o F-3/24, Ground Floor, Model Town-II, Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral
1. Heard Sri Rajat Bhardwaj, Advocate at the Admission stage itself in this revision, as there seems no need to hear the respondent complainant.
2. The facts of the order passed by the Forum which the revisionist OP has assailed by filing this revision application can be gauged from the copy of the order attached herewith as Annexure A and therefore need not be repeated here.
3. These orders passed by the District Forum against the revisionist are wholly unwarranted and unnecessary. If the revisionist OP was not appearing despite notice, the learned Forum could and should have proceeded exparte against him, and if it was considered appropriate, an exparte stay could have been granted, as prayed by the complainant respondent. The District Consumer Forum also further passed order maintaining status quo, but it was not clarified as to what the status is, which can ultimately lead to conflicting claims and confusion. It is necessary, that a clear and specific order should be passed by the court in such matters. In this case, the complainant claimed an order from the District Consumer Forum, that the OP should not cancel the flat allotted to him and shall not sell the same. The allotment has already been cancelled and as such no stay can be granted.
4. The stay regarding the builder revisionist for selling or disposing of the flat can be granted and in the circumstances it will not be inappropriate to grant such an order. The revisionist builder is therefore directed not to sell the flat till disposal of the case. The rests of the orders passed by the District consumer Forum are set aside. Revision is decided accordingly.
5. The case is therefore remanded back to Consumer Forum for further proceedings according to law.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc Annexure-A 07.08.2012 Present : Counsel for the parties.
In the present case the complainant had filed an interim application alongwith complaint praying that an ad-interim injunction be granted restraining OP from cancelling the flat No. 0704, 7th Floor KINGSBURY TOWER-B, B@ TDI City Kundli Haryana till the final disposal of the complaint. The OP did not file any reply to the said application and was asked to file a reply on 9.01.2012. The reply was again not filed on the said date and therefore it was directed that the concerned Director of the OP will appear on 15.03.12 to reply to the application filed by the complainant. The case was adjourned to 24.05.2012 as on 15.03.2012 as well the Director of the OP was not present and a request was made that he will appear on the next date of hearing on 24.5.2012 again the Director of the OP did not appear and an order of status quo was passed by the Forum. The case was listed on 11.07.2012 for appearance of the Director on that date again the Director was not produced. It was ordered that the OP shall take a certified copy of Form A and produce the Director who was responsible for the day to day functioning of the OP. The case was adjourned to 31.07.2012 on which date again the order was not complied with nor a copy of Form A filed on record. Accordingly a cost of Rs.
10,000/- was imposed on the OP and it was again directed to comply with the earlier order.
Today again the order has not been complied with on been asked as to why a copy of Form A has not been filed the learned counsel appearing for the OP states that he is not to the knowledge of the fact as to what is Form A. He also states that he had conveyed the order to the company Secretary who was also ignorant about the Form A. The learned counsel has also stated that the director of the OP is not present in the city and is travelling abroad and therefore has not been produced in the forum. An application has been moved for waiving the cost imposed in the case. It is also stated that the company has passed a resolution authorizing Rajat Nagpal to appear in the Forum. The learned counsel has however failed to give the name of the Director who is not present in the city and is not able to appear in the Forum.
Since the matter involved granting of an ad interim injunction it was considered essential that the Director of the OP who is responsible for the day to day functioning of the Company appear in person and answer queries of the Forum. Under the provisions of the CPA this Forum has the authority to call the parties and record their statements. It appears that the OP is deliberately not producing the Director who is responsible for the day to day functioning of the Company. The application filed by the OP is accordingly dismissed. The OP is directed to comply with order of 01.07.12 and pay cost on the next date of hearing i.e. 31.08.2012. Date changed to 24.08.12 on request of the OP.
Sd/-
07.08.2012